Attorney General Opinion No.
Background
- Kansas State Use Law (SUL) governs purchases by state agencies and Unified School Districts (USDs) through a catalogue of qualified vendors.
- A qualified vendor is a Kansas not-for-profit entity primarily employing or serving the blind or severely disabled and whose operations benefit that population, with income not benefiting shareholders.
- The Director of Purchases oversees SUL pricing and catalogue publication; USDs must purchase products from qualified vendors, while services have a different treatment.
- K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 75-3319(a) allows USDs to set product specifications; 75-3321 and 75-3319(d) address purchases of products and services from qualified vendors; 75-3322(a) authorizes waivers.
- Legislative history shows USDs traditionally not exempt from SUL for products; the term 'services' in SUL is tied to unskilled labor contracts, not broad procurement.
- Two scenarios: USD combines product and related services not provided by the SUL vendor; USD purchases product and imposes vendor-delivered services; both raise whether the purchase is a product from a qualified vendor or a service exempt from SUL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the SUL exemption apply when a USD buys a product and services for that product together? | Pottorff contends exemptions may apply if the combined purchase mirrors a service contract. | Schmidt argues USDs must still obtain products from qualified vendors; services are not exempted when bundled with products. | Question of fact; cannot evade SUL by bundling product with related services. |
| Does the SUL specification provision apply when a USD requires a vendor to provide services with a purchased product? | Pottorff argues specifications could govern bundled services as part of the product purchase. | Schmidt maintains specification authority is limited and does not create an exemption for bundled services. | Question of fact; cannot use a specification to override SUL for bundled services. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 289 Kan. 521 (Kan. 2009) (statutory interpretation governs when language is clear)